Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

I will seperate the education part and the general social services part then. Unwed mothers with another form of support, i.e. parents will not apply for the benefits unless their family has an annual income of less than $25,000 per year.

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

a) Child/Day care.

b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program. This is to be used for:

a) Enrollment in Community College

b) Enrollment is Technical College

c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates degree.

b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections 1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure, i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than $35,000 per year. She will still have full access to the benefits mentioned in Sections 5-6.

Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

I will seperate the education part and the general social services part then. Unwed mothers with another form of support, i.e. parents will not apply for the benefits unless their family has an annual income of less than $25,000 per year.

I still say the costs will be too high. Even if these changes cuts the total applicants in half, you still end up spending 6.25 billion a year, not including beauracratic costs. And as I said, my estimates for cost 'per child annually' was a low guess. It is probably more.

There's also the problem of where to build shelters - they need to be close enough to the workplace of the mother to be effective, otherwise the mother may be unable to afford to go to the shelter. Thusly these shelters would need to be all over the place, increasing costs. This also creates a dependency - it's not crazy to assume that most of these women will not go to college, grant or no - so when age 5 comes around they no longer have the money and support they depended on for the last 5 years, leaving them essentially stranded and in poverty.

There are far too many problems with this bill. I can't lend my support to it.

Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

I will seperate the education part and the general social services part then. Unwed mothers with another form of support, i.e. parents will not apply for the benefits unless their family has an annual income of less than $25,000 per year.

I still say the costs will be too high. Even if these changes cuts the total applicants in half, you still end up spending 6.25 billion a year, not including beauracratic costs. And as I said, my estimates for cost 'per child annually' was a low guess. It is probably more.

There's also the problem of where to build shelters - they need to be close enough to the workplace of the mother to be effective, otherwise the mother may be unable to afford to go to the shelter. Thusly these shelters would need to be all over the place, increasing costs. This also creates a dependency - it's not crazy to assume that most of these women will not go to college, grant or no - so when age 5 comes around they no longer have the money and support they depended on for the last 5 years, leaving them essentially stranded and in poverty.

There are far too many problems with this bill. I can't lend my support to it.

My friend John Dibble seems to be concerned that this bill will cost far more than I have suggested. If that is the case, then I think that maybe it would be a good idea to increase the funding of this program, designed to save lives and bring hope, to about:

$1.2 billion... Oh, what a coincidence, that number is equal to roughly .001% of the 2001 Bush tax cut.

My friend John Dibble seems to be concerned that this bill will cost far more than I have suggested. If that is the case, then I think that maybe it would be a good idea to increase the funding of this program, designed to save lives and bring hope, to about:

$1.2 billion... Oh, what a coincidence, that number is equal to roughly .001% of the 2001 Bush tax cut.

My friend John Dibble seems to be concerned that this bill will cost far more than I have suggested. If that is the case, then I think that maybe it would be a good idea to increase the funding of this program, designed to save lives and bring hope, to about:

$1.2 billion... Oh, what a coincidence, that number is equal to roughly .001% of the 2001 Bush tax cut.

Explain

I'm not really saying that we should role back the cuts, or anything. I just find it sad that we are some are having such a difficult time with this.

If someone else would like to propose that as an amendment, I would abstain.

Well, I personally think it's a good idea, but I'm currently mulling over what exactly it should be. If I recall correctly, birth control is already free. I suppose we could replace abstinence-only education where it exists in public schools with education that combines abstinence with birth control in its explanation, but I don't really know how well that would be received. I personally support it, but I'm not here to thrust my views on everyone else.

Barring that idea, I'm not sure what form the promotion would be in, though.

As I stated before, I do not think this will cause any serious decrease in the number of abortions, especially among teenagers.

And my concern is not about underfunding - it's about spending a gross amount of money on another beauracratic nightmare that only serves to create a welfare state. Also I believe this far oversteps the bounds in which the federal government should operate, not to mention you are spending other people's money on your moral cause - not everyone believes abortion is murder. You may not like it, but it's the truth. Fight for your cause with your money and that of willing donors, not the taxpayer's money.

If you are really so concerned, my advice to you is to start a private organization run by pro-lifers who sign up worthwhile couples who desire to adopt a child, have representatives stand in front of abortion clinics and ask people if they would instead consider bearing the child and adopting them out. I've heard numerous times from pro-lifers saying that they would adopt the children who are going to get aborted, now I say it is time to prove it. Put up or shut up.

Also I believe this far oversteps the bounds in which the federal government should operate, not to mention you are spending other people's money on your moral cause - not everyone believes abortion is murder. You may not like it, but it's the truth. Fight for your cause with your money and that of willing donors, not the taxpayer's money.

Some people may not think abortion is murder (heck, I'm one of them, up until roughly the second trimester or so), but I don't really think that this bill is nothing more than an advancement of someone's moral ideas. Of those people who don't think that abortion is murder, I would at least hope that most of them nevertheless don't like the thought of abortions.

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. It's an extremely unpleasant process, even if you don't think it's murder. This bill is simply providing other options, since many women may not have any. I would wager (though I don't know) that the vast majority of the people who get abortions do it because they either don't want the child or because they can't support the child, and I would also wager that at least half of those people did not want to have an abortion, but simply felt that no other choice was available. This bill addresses that and makes other options available.

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion. This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion. Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

I'm leaning toward support - that's right, John Dibble, support - since in principle this matches what I stated in my campaign speech, and damn it, I am a populist, NOT a libertarian. I still think the bill needs a little work - in particular, I have to insist on adding Gabu's birth control promotion amendment to it - one of my campaign planks, after all.

Jake, if you wish to eliminate funding for the UNFPA, then get a senator to propose an amendment to my proposed modification to the Family Planning Act, but don't propose the amendment here unless the amendment is enacted there. I'm sure States will be glad to propose it for you.

There are things that are worth more than a tax cut, and this is one of them. Given the conservative and libertarian nature of my district, this may be unpopular, but I never pretended to be anything other than what I am, and I said I'd support this type of idea during the (admittedly short) campaign. Or in other words, object to my stance if you like - I ain't changing it.

I'm leaning toward support - that's right, John Dibble, support - since in principle this matches what I stated in my campaign speech, and damn it, I am a populist, NOT a libertarian. I still think the bill needs a little work - in particular, I have to insist on adding Gabu's birth control promotion amendment to it - one of my campaign planks, after all.

Jake, if you wish to eliminate funding for the UNFPA, then get a senator to propose an amendment to my proposed modification to the Family Planning Act, but don't propose the amendment here unless the amendment is enacted there. I'm sure States will be glad to propose it for you.

There are things that are worth more than a tax cut, and this is one of them. Given the conservative and libertarian nature of my district, this may be unpopular, but I never pretended to be anything other than what I am, and I said I'd support this type of idea during the (admittedly short) campaign. Or in other words, object to my stance if you like - I ain't changing it.

I've given you my reasons against it. I urged you not to support it for those reasons. If you still wish to support it, fine. I still say it will be an ineffective beauracratic nightmare that will create people who are dependent upon the government.

Erm, I don't mean to be rude, but that's a very crass comment to make. It's not exactly sensitive to the opinions of the many who think that abortion is murder.

Oh, com'on Gabu. You can't blame him for wanting to "reduce the surplus population". Scrooge promoted that... before his transformation.

I believe the exact quote was, "Well, if they are going to die, then they better do it quicky and decrease the surplus population". You can't go much quicker than before you are even born.

Now, at this time, I could go into my usual argueement, back with facts, about how "over-population" is just a boogie man, that doen't really exist, but I've done that so many times and on so many occations that I really don't care to get into it again.

I'm leaning toward support - that's right, John Dibble, support - since in principle this matches what I stated in my campaign speech, and damn it, I am a populist, NOT a libertarian. I still think the bill needs a little work - in particular, I have to insist on adding Gabu's birth control promotion amendment to it - one of my campaign planks, after all.

Jake, if you wish to eliminate funding for the UNFPA, then get a senator to propose an amendment to my proposed modification to the Family Planning Act, but don't propose the amendment here unless the amendment is enacted there. I'm sure States will be glad to propose it for you.

There are things that are worth more than a tax cut, and this is one of them. Given the conservative and libertarian nature of my district, this may be unpopular, but I never pretended to be anything other than what I am, and I said I'd support this type of idea during the (admittedly short) campaign. Or in other words, object to my stance if you like - I ain't changing it.

Good for you WMS. I knew that, if no one else, I could count on you. If anyone wants to propose such an ammendment, they are more than welcome to it. And yes, there are some things that are more important than a tax cut.